Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

So what is Trump's Electoral College path to victory?

As far as I can tell these are the states Trump has to win based on Note all of these states include those currently being reported as tossup, or lean Clinton or Trump but tightening to within margin of error);

Florida (Tossup)
North Carolina (lean HRC) voted Romney 2012
Georgia (Lean DT) Voted Romney 2012
Ohio (Tossup) voted Obama 2012
Iowa (Tossup) voted Obama 2012
Missouri (Lean DT) voted Romney 2012
Indiana (Lean DT) voted Romney 2012
Texas (Lean DT) voted Romney 2012
Nebraska 2nd (Lean DT) voted Romney 2012
Colorado (lean HRC) voted Obama 2012
Utah (Tossup) Voted Romney 2012
Nevada (Tossup) Voted Obama 2012
Arizona (Tossup) Voted Romney 2012

The following are supposedly strongly DT
Alaska
West Virginia
Kentucky
Tennessee
Alabama
Mississippi
Louisiana
Arkansas
Oklahoma
Kansas
Nebraska (Remaining congressional districts, plus overall popular vote)
South Dakota
North Dakota
Montana
Wyoming
Idaho

Total 274

This is not to say Trump will win these states, just what seems the most plausible path to victory (however implausible to some it may seem). If looking for early indicators of a HRC win, North Carolina seems to be the state to watch. It's returns are likely to be in before Ohio and Florida and of the states in the EST zone, it probably would go the longest way of informing if the polling has been way off and/or the recent news did have any influence similar to the 1980 election. Conversely, for Trump, If he wins North Carolina, then he has to win Ohio. If he wins Ohio, he has to win Florida (I believe the returns will come in that way since part of Florida is in the CST Zone), and so on and so on. In other words, a Trump victory may not become apparent until Nevada's returns come in. The only thing I could think of that may indicate a Trump win any earlier is if someone how either Virginia or Pennsylvania went for Trump which I can't imagine currently.

Are there any other scenario's? Will North Carolina be the bellwether? By the way, regardless of your political bent, its somewhat ironic I think that the term bellwether comes from the label for the leading sheep of a flock with the bell on its neck. I Certainly have felt like at times during this election cycle like a sheep being led to slaughter.


FYI, other Tossup/Lean states that Trump wouldn't need in the above scenario
Maine 2nd (Tossup)
Pennslyvania (Lean HRC)
Virginia (Lean HRC)
Michigan (Lean HRC)
Wisconsin (Lean HRC)
Minnesota (Lean HRC)
New Mexico (Lean HRC)

* Added 2012 election results to list of lean/tossup states

 whembly wrote:

 Breotan wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
I still don't get it. He told them about a hearing. In a building that has 24/7 TV coverage. How is that damning?

By itself, it isn't. That's the real problem here, too many dots not being connected to support the picture right-wing media is trying to show. That's the problem with most scandals involving the Clintons or people in their political machine, lots of circumstantial things but no smoking gun. In fact, the Monica Lewinski scandal is the only one I can think of that actually had a smoking gun (the blue dress).

Say what you want about the Clinton but they're smart enough not to leave a paper trail and tell-all books are usually little more than gossip or hearsay. Then there's Hillary's bouts of amnesia during depositions. Her oft repeated "I don't remember" line was the subject of parody back in the day when Bill was President and she had another bout of amnesia just recently when talking to the FBI about her emails. I don't know why she's allowed to get away with that when other people being deposed can't - even Bill got fined for perjury.

No... The point is this: Given Kadzik's closeness to Hillary’s campaign chairman, he really should not be involved in the ongoing investigation and thus recuse himself.

And every single Republican who involved themselves in the Benghazi "investigation" should have recused themselves from their position after wasting so much taxpayer money and time.

What's your point?

 Kanluwen wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Breotan wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
I still don't get it. He told them about a hearing. In a building that has 24/7 TV coverage. How is that damning?

By itself, it isn't. That's the real problem here, too many dots not being connected to support the picture right-wing media is trying to show. That's the problem with most scandals involving the Clintons or people in their political machine, lots of circumstantial things but no smoking gun. In fact, the Monica Lewinski scandal is the only one I can think of that actually had a smoking gun (the blue dress).

Say what you want about the Clinton but they're smart enough not to leave a paper trail and tell-all books are usually little more than gossip or hearsay. Then there's Hillary's bouts of amnesia during depositions. Her oft repeated "I don't remember" line was the subject of parody back in the day when Bill was President and she had another bout of amnesia just recently when talking to the FBI about her emails. I don't know why she's allowed to get away with that when other people being deposed can't - even Bill got fined for perjury.

No... The point is this: Given Kadzik's closeness to Hillary’s campaign chairman, he really should not be involved in the ongoing investigation and thus recuse himself.

And every single Republican who involved themselves in the Benghazi "investigation" should have recused themselves from their position after wasting so much taxpayer money and time.

What's your point?

The difference is Congressmen/Senate has legal OVERSIGHT.

The DOJ is supposed to be impartial.

A gross example of Conflict of Interests.

 whembly wrote:
[
You do know that I'm here... right?

Oh, don't worry, you do a pretty good job to make sure no one is able to forget the fact you're still active on this forum. And I still believe Sebster's definition is quite accurate on your case. That you keep going back even after lieing so much, defending those lies even when they aren't defendable anymore and apparently believe the people posting here have the memory of a red fish is giving you quite a few things in common with Trump himself.

But it's clear to me you don't want to question yourself, rather blaming the others for your own delusions.

 Sarouan wrote:

 whembly wrote:
[
You do know that I'm here... right?

Oh, don't worry, you do a pretty good job to make sure no one is able to forget the fact you're still active on this forum. And I still believe Sebster's definition is quite accurate on your case. That you keep going back even after lieing so much, defending those lies even when they aren't defendable anymore and apparently believe the people posting here have the memory of a red fish is giving you quite a few things in common with Trump himself.

But it's clear to me you don't want to question yourself, rather blaming the others for your own delusions.

You keep on being you.

Next time, if you think I'm lying, please address the point and add something to the conversation.

Ass hats are prepping for election night.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/us-militia-girds-for-trouble-as-presidential-election-nears/ar-AAjJlOv?li=BBnbfcL&ocid=ASUDHP

Look at the comments from these clowns. This is what right wing paranoia propaganda breeds. Knuckle dragging idiots that say and think: "This is the last chance to save America from ruin," Hill said. "I'm surprised I was able to survive or suffer through eight years of Obama without literally going insane, but Hillary is going to be more of the same." Too late on the "insane" bit, old boy.

So unemployment at 5%, stock market at record highs, cheapest gas we've seen in over a decade, record low interest rates, energy independent America, shrinking deficit, strongest and best funded military in the world and these feths are "...surprised I was able to survive...". What pool of lunacy do these people spawn from? I mean, really?!

All the leaks used during this campaign are really worrying: there are so many private informations in the wild ! How is it possible ? Traitors ? Hackers ?

 BigWaaagh wrote:
Ass hats are prepping for election night.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/us-militia-girds-for-trouble-as-presidential-election-nears/ar-AAjJlOv?li=BBnbfcL&ocid=ASUDHP

Look at the comments from these clowns. This is what right wing paranoia propaganda breeds. Knuckle dragging idiots that say and think: "This is the last chance to save America from ruin," Hill said. "I'm surprised I was able to survive or suffer through eight years of Obama without literally going insane, but Hillary is going to be more of the same." Too late on the "insane" bit, old boy.

So unemployment at 5%, stock market at record highs, cheapest gas we've seen in over a decade, record low interest rates, energy independent America, shrinking deficit, strongest and best funded military in the world and these feths are "...surprised I was able to survive...". What pool of lunacy do these people spawn from? I mean, really?!

Yeah... All of *those people* have lead to the FBI labeling Right-Wing Extremism as the greatest threat to the country..... But I'm sure that's just a liberal plot.

And it looks like the guy who ambushed and killed two cops in Iowa also put a massive Trump sign in his lawn and was a white supremacist. Things are heating up in a way I never expected.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
And it looks like the guy who ambushed and killed two cops in Iowa also put a massive Trump sign in his lawn and was a white supremacist. Things are heating up in a way I never expected.

I did not see that coming. do you have a source for that?

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
And it looks like the guy who ambushed and killed two cops in Iowa also put a massive Trump sign in his lawn and was a white supremacist. Things are heating up in a way I never expected.

I did not see that coming. do you have a source for that?

This tweet. https://twitter.com/GrantMRodgers/status/793832954975793152

Don't know how accurate it is, but that's what it is. He certainly was a white supremacist, they have pics of him waving confederate flags in front of a black group at a sporting event. I'll find them in a sec.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Here we are.
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/crime-and-courts/2016/11/02/scott-michael-greene-convicted-combative-2014-encounters/93157528/

The lady behind him has one of the best 'done with your crap' faces I've seen in a while.

The American flag being held right next to the Confederate one is a nice touch of lack of self-awareness.

I don't think waving a confederate flag makes you a white supremacist, I think it just makes you an donkey-cave (which, in a venn diagram, contains white supremacists).

It's probably the "in front of a black group" that does illustrate it though....

I found something that sort of outlines his racism.
http://heavy.com/news/2016/11/scott-michael-greene-des-moines-urbandale-iowa-police-shooter-gunman-suspect-photos-pictures-facebook-motive-military-criminal-record/

"They are cop haters!" *proceeds to kill two cops*

Go figure...

 d-usa wrote:
"They are cop haters!" *proceeds to kill two cops*

Go figure...

It's almost like the man was insane, and trying to tie him to political movements or the like would be a meaningless thing...

Yeah his political inclinations don't seem relevant here.

I think it is, in the fact that Trump's campaign is bringing these crazy's out. And I'm sort of scared for what will happen considering all the nutjobs threatening violence if Trump loses. I don't think it would be a real uprising, but there is a definite possibility of people getting hurt. And the fact that I even have to worry about that at all is horrific. That this is how far this campaign has gotten. And I don't know if we are going to be able to sweep this under the rug. The racists, the sexists, the donkey-caves all know they have a voice now. And they'll use it, whether Trump wins or loses.

Can we just move past half the country supporting a racist, sexist, abusive, Islamophobic person like Trump?


edit: I should point out that I don't blame trump for this or anything, just that his rhetoric has emboldened these people.

Everyone says this every election.

Somehow the fabric of society has managed to hold itself together.

Being looking at politics since 2012. Seems like the world (not just the political world, but also the internet, the media, the schools, the community, etc.), has become mad. Left, right, up, down, center, front, back, everywhere everyone seem to be screaming and acting like a crazy monkey.

 djones520 wrote:
Everyone says this every election.

Somehow the fabric of society has managed to hold itself together.

Because this election is so normal?

 djones520 wrote:
Everyone says this every election.

Somehow the fabric of society has managed to hold itself together.

But we haven't had a a terrible candidate of a major party like this in a long time

 djones520 wrote:
Everyone says this every election.

Somehow the fabric of society has managed to hold itself together.

Not really though... I think Co'tor is right in his opinions... It may turn out that nothing happens... But it may turn out that this election, of all elections the crazies actually do something.

The problem to me isn't that the crazies might do something, because I think that by itself won't accomplish much, if anything. The problem to me, is that IF the crazies do act up, the police will be "forced" to be police, which will further feed into the fears of other right-wing crazies.

I hope they do 'rise up' against the 'oppressor' while some innocent people will be hurt, and that's terrible, it will allow us to throw a ton of these people in jail where they won't vote again.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I hope they do 'rise up' against the 'oppressor' while some innocent people will be hurt, and that's terrible, it will allow us to throw a ton of these people in jail where they won't vote again.

You'd hope they end up in jail, but we saw how that worked out for the bundys. They've already started though, so far:

stopped a group from registering minorities to vote.
burnt down a church in a black community.
killed a muslim in wisconsin at a pizzeria.
*cheap shot* and shot two cops.

with 6 more days to go and a group of idiots who think they can't lose unless it's rigged, this has the potential to be bad. I can't think of any election before this one where burning down churches was some sort of attempt to reach out to the black votes.

I'm so glad that in this election cycle of mean spirits, slander, and outright lies there's one person who has steadfastly remained above it all.

President Obama wrote:"I hate to put a little pressure on you, but the fate of the republic rests on your shoulders. The fate of the world is teetering."

Or not.

Seriously though, the fate of the Republic? And who spent the last eight years watching the world get to the teetering point in the first place?

Sigh. One week to go.

There's been a lot talked about whacky election results, like McMullin getting up in Utah and denying either candidate 270 votes. I don't think I've seen anyone post something about a close election producing a lot of recounts, though. That was pretty heated in 2000, and I can see it being almost insane this time around, with the much more heated nature of the race, the talk about rigged elections, the improper conduct already uncovered, and the big one... a 4 to 4 Supreme Court. It was bad enough when the court ruled 5 to 4 along party lines in 2000 to stop the recount, imagine this time around if we see a 4 to 4 vote.

 Ouze wrote:
I always thought the idea that Trump was linked to Russia in a tangible, official way to be pretty dubious. I think it's provable they sometimes feed him stuff, but it's less a concerted effort and more that he's a useful idiot in that regard.

I think it's a given that Russia is behind the hacks, and I think they have a vested interest in Trump winning, but that doesn't make it a conspiracy, just a confluence of shared interests.

Yeah, I think the idea of any kind of formal conspiracy is very unlikely. It's a fantastical claim with very scarce evidence.

However, I do think the idea of a less formal relationship, one in which there are people who are friendly and connected with both the Trump campaign and with Putin is fairly plausible, and has a fair bit of evidence. There's Manafort as the most obvious example*. But the one that really sticks in my mind is wikileaks release of the Podesta emails. The Trump campaign was hyping this release before it happened, and even dropped Podesta's name. When Assange gave his much hyped announcement and didn't drop the tapes, Trump surrogate Alex Jones went off his nut abusing Assange. A couple of days later the emails were dropped. The emails were a Russian hack, the question is how the Trump campaign learned of the leak ahead of time - was it through co-ordination with wikileaks, or with the Russians?

There is certainly some kind of overlap between the parties, the question is the extent of the overlap, and the motives of the Russians in their part. The mostly likely thing is an informal overlap, the Russian motivation probably just being to mess with the US democratic process just to lower US standing in the world, and thereby make their own position as an international pariah a little less likely to continue.




*Although, interestingly enough, Manafort was picked by Trump as a concession to the GOP. The party wanted a steady hand with long connections to the GOP, and Trump conceded. That the guy they picked ended up having ties to Russia, as well as other gaks like Ferdinand Marcos actually says more about the GOP than it does about Trump.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Herzlos wrote:
They may not have the scientific understanding to question the facts directly, but they'll be familiar with the peer reviewing process and critical analysis, which will allow them to make a reasonably informed interpretation of the papers.

Not really. First up STEM includes stuff like engineering and computer programming. Jobs with a high level of technical knowledge, but as much work in research and peer review as the guy who just emptied my bin.

Second up, the word 'peer' is included in peer review for a very good reason, because the review is undertaken by your peers in your field of specialty. If a group of medical researchers release a new paper, it is peer reviewed by other medical researchers. Nobody goes and asks what a theoretical physicist thinks of the paper, because that would be fething bananas.

And yet because climate change is politically contentious, and because one side of the debate can't find the opinions they want to hear among climate scientists, they go out and get the opinions of engineers and geologists.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Maddermax wrote:
Sebster: can you reduce the size of that graphic, it's doing terrible things to my browser.

Fair enough. How do I change an image's size?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
Missing my point.

All I'm saying politicians will pander to whomever will vote for them. That's all...

And you're missing my point. When one side ends up forming policy that is supported by science, they are automatically preferable to the side that is denying science, no matter the motivations in forming the policies.

To put it another way, politics is indeed a sausage factory, and any time you look in to how the sausage gets made you will end up a bit disgusted. But when one has a sausage filled with actual meat, and the other side has a sausage filled with turds and razor blades, then navel gazing about how ugly sausage making might be is really missing hte point, you are going to pick the sausage with meat in it.

And you totally missed "Climatologist" I wrote there...

You also mentioned STEM professionals, which was a fail.

There are plenty of debate/dispute within the this field.

On the extent and immediacy of the issue, there is no debate on whether it is happening and whether it is caused by man.

Okay... do me a favor, provide me links with those studies so that I can look at how those surveys are conducted.

www.google.com

Seriously just put the lead author, climate study, the percentage and you'll get the survey.

That Cook study was a fething disgrace, but based on that image above, I'm willing to read into the nuts & bolts of that surveys and reassess my opinions.

"fething disgrace" is pretty out there. The survey had some methodological limits that meant it couldn't be relied on as pure gospel, but instead was a finding that required follow up studies to confirm. Which then happened. Science!

It's more likely that the GOP voters are coming "back home".

Still no where near enough for him to defeat Clinton.

It looks like it will get him back within 3 points. From there a polling miss big enough to swing the result becomes possible.

The question will be, what's the over/under of Clinton getting 300 EV?

I'm taking the over for Clinton.

I think over 300 is a lot more likely than a Trump win, but everything is still in play.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sarouan wrote:
Well, there is no fun in a one-sided election. You need to put some show, after all. I'm not really surprised by this "sudden" change of heart in the polls.

The medias are playing a terrible part in this election. And it's quite clear the Republican are using them as their core strategy. After all, that's where Trump shine the most.

All this noise on Clinton's mails is just here to keep people from thinking about Trump's real character, acts and "campaign plans". So that they can be convinced "she's equally bad", as usual.

There's been a very strange effect where Clinton has only one issue with the emails, so there's been a constant focus on it. As I said earlier 560,000 stories on the email thing. Whereas Trump says something terrible, or has a new scandal from his past uncovered every couple of days, the media moves on to the next scandal before the last one has been even half covered.

It's almost better to have 50 scandals than to have 1.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 feeder wrote:
Is there a way to say 'wilfully misinformed' more succinctly?

Obtuse voters?

 sebster wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
Missing my point.

All I'm saying politicians will pander to whomever will vote for them. That's all...

And you're missing my point. When one side ends up forming policy that is supported by science, they are automatically preferable to the side that is denying science, no matter the motivations in forming the policies.

To put it another way, politics is indeed a sausage factory, and any time you look in to how the sausage gets made you will end up a bit disgusted. But when one has a sausage filled with actual meat, and the other side has a sausage filled with turds and razor blades, then navel gazing about how ugly sausage making might be is really missing hte point, you are going to pick the sausage with meat in it.

Not even disagreeing with you buddy.

It's more likely that the GOP voters are coming "back home".

Still no where near enough for him to defeat Clinton.

It looks like it will get him back within 3 points. From there a polling miss big enough to swing the result becomes possible.

I still don't see it man. He'd have to flip at least one "cocktease" state of PA, WI, MN or CO+?? We'll see next Tuesday eh?

The question will be, what's the over/under of Clinton getting 300 EV?

I'm taking the over for Clinton.

I think over 300 is a lot more likely than a Trump win, but everything is still in play.

Agreed.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
-My dream scenario is that Clinton narrowly wins the electoral votes (so she can't claim a mandate) and GOP retains control of the House/Senate.
-My Political Junkie's dream, is that neither candidates get to 270 EV... but, that's a pipe dream if ever.
-If Trump wins? Man... someone better summon up Cthulhu...

Don't worry about the 'mandate'. It's a thing politicians claim no matter how much or how little they won by, and it's a thing that opposition ignores no matter how much or how little the result. Put it this way, if the GOP didn't roll over after 2008, they aren't going to roll over when Clinton beats Trump, even if its a big result.

I'm actually really happy that you've recognised that Clinton is a mile away from your ideal candidate, but she's nothing like the disaster that is Trump.

Eh? I still think they're both bad.

A Clinton Presidency will look vastly different that a Trump Presidency. But, I think they'll both be serious gak show.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
Let's all acknowledge that to certain degree, we're all hacks because we all believe we're right.

Well, everyone believes they're right. It's impossible to do otherwise.

But we are all certainly hacks, arguing politics on a wargmaing forum pretty much guarantees that

You got that right brother:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sarouan wrote:
And I still believe Sebster's definition is quite accurate on your case.

I see my comment about misinformed voters has become something of an attack on whembly, and only whembly. That's certainly not what I intended when I raised the issue.

If someone is wrong on a subject, then challenge them on that subject, prove them wrong. By all means be as blunt as you need to be, once you've established they were mistaken move on to talking about how they came to form their mistaken opinion in the first place.

But don't just label someone as wrong and use that to dismiss them without actually dealing with their argument.

Yep. If you think I'm wrong, just brow beat me as to why.

I'm a neanderthal for Christ's sake!

Can we put Clinton in jail yet?